New Principles and Instruments of Environmental
Governance and the Influence of Scientific Input With case
studies from fisheries, GMOs, climate change and forestry

To what
extent does the spread of certain new principles and instruments of
environmental governance change the conditions for competing knowledge
producers to affect environmental policy and implementation? By softening the
link between scientific certainty on environmental risk and the assessment of
policy options, the precautionary principle has in some areas led to greater
competition between various disciplines and knowledge producers called upon to
provide scientific input. The principle of transparency increasingly obliges
states to ensure that interest groups and individuals have access to
environmental information and can participate in the making of such decisions.
A third tendency in environmental governance is the growing use of
new instruments, including voluntary agreements and mandatory
procedures for industry-based risk assessment, market-based instruments such as
quotas, and schemes for environmental labelling.

This project aimed at
clarifying the extent to which these developments have influenced the access
that various knowledge producers have to environmental decision making. To what
extent, and how, has the level of scientific controversy in the science-policy
interface been affected? And what is the relationship between such patterns of
access and controversy and the influence of competing claims to relevant
knowledge? The project's geographic focus was Norway, neighbouring countries
and the European Union. Four areas of environmental governance were examined:
Fisheries, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), forestry and climate change.
In addition, a cross-issue and over-time comparative study was
conducted.

The case study on fisheries focused on the controversy that
surrounded the development and implementation of a precautionary approach to
management of Northeast Arctic cod, managed jointly by Norway and Russia.
Scientific input has been orchestrated by the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea. Whereas the biologist-centered advisory process has
been attacked by industry groups and others as inadequate with respect to
socio-economic risks and options, NGOs have forwarded the opposite criticism
that management is excessively inclusive of industry input.

The case
study on GMOs examined the assessment involved in decisions on applications for
genetically modified food, feed, or plants in Norway. All applications of these
types sent to the EU must be separately decided on by Norwegian authorities.
The main question has been how competing knowledge claimants achieve access to
the decision-making process relating to GMOs in Norway. A sub-question has
related this to international institutional factors: How do multilateral
environmental and trade agreements  especially their differential
emphasis on certainty in evidence of risk  affect the formation and
strength of knowledge claims relating to GMO assessment in Norway.

A
third study examined the relationship between competing knowledge claims about
biodiversity status and trends and environmental protection in Norwegian and
Swedish forestry. This study has seeked to clarify whether, and how, this
relationship has been affected by principles such as precaution, transparency
and those embedded in international biodiversity and forestry agreements, and
by non-state, market-driven forest certification and labelling schemes. (More
details about this study to be found
here.)

The
case study on EU emission trading focused on a new policy instrument in climate
policy. In this case study, we explored whether and how emission trading has
changed access to environmental information and participation in climate policy
making so far and central prospects ahead. Hence, the study proceeded in two
steps. First, we analyzed actual participation in the design of the system at
EU level. Second, we explored the consequences of actual participation for
future access and participation in decision-making at European and global
levels. Preliminary observations poined in two opposite directions. On the one
hand, emission trading had represented an extremely complex policy instrument
developed by a small core group of insiders. We thus expeced that this
instrument would lead to specialization and narrow participation. On the other
hand, the implementation of emission trading in Europe resembled an extensive
learning process among companies, governments and green organizations.
According to this observation, we expected broader participation and knowledge
with regard to emission trading particularly as a part of the Kyoto Protocol.
With regard to corporations we investigated to what extent emissions trading
put climate policy far more firmly on the corporate agenda.

The project
was part of the Research Council of Norway's
RAMBU
programme.

Gulbrandsen, Lars H., Doctoral
Project. Presented at a scientific seminar on international forest
processes at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Ecology
and Natural Resource Management, 6 september 2005.